Town prepares for Great Dam removal petition

Jeff McMenemy

Tuesday

Jan 14, 2014 at 2:00 AM

EXETER — Selectmen voted unanimously Monday morning to instruct Department of Public Works employees to complete and submit an application for federal grant money that could pay for as much as 75 percent of removing Great Dam if a citizens petition is approved by voters.

EXETER — Selectmen voted unanimously Monday morning to instruct Department of Public Works employees to complete and submit an application for federal grant money that could pay for as much as 75 percent of removing Great Dam if a citizens petition is approved by voters.

Resident Brian Griset and a group of other people who support the dam's removal filed the petition Friday in Town Offices after selectmen by a vote of 3-2 rejected a motion to remove the dam last week.

The state Department of Environmental Services issued the town a letter of deficiency 13 years ago saying the dam, which is on the Exeter River in the heart of the downtown, could not withstand a 50-year storm event and the situation had to be addressed.

Selectmen also, by a vote of 3-1 on Monday, approved a motion made by Selectman Matt Quandt to ask the DPW to start crafting a "rough draft" for request for proposals (RFPs) for dam modification and dam stabilization in the event the citizens petition calling for the removal of the Great Dam fails.

Selectman Frank Ferraro voted against the motion, saying he didn't see the urgency of it with the citizens petition still pending.

Quandt said he didn't want any work on the RFPs done until after the March elections.

"I want to see what happens with the citizen's petition," Quandt said.

DES officials also told the town last Friday that it had to send a letter to them outlining its plans to address the letter of deficiency since the selectmen's attempt to remove the dam failed.

"I think we should plan for all eventualities," Quandt said.

Selectman Dan Chartrand, who made the motion for the DPW to "complete and submit" the grant application by the Jan. 31 deadline, also announced that he remains "committed to dam removal in the long term."

"My problem all along has been a rush through process at the selectboard level," Chartrand said.

Chartrand, the vice chairman of the board, said he was voting for Quandt's motion because "'DES' dam bureau is potentially going to rush our process once again."

Selectmen Chairman Don Clement disputed Chartrand's contention that the process had been rushed, saying, "It's not a rushed process from DES' standpoint because I think they issued the town a letter of deficiency in 2001."

But Chartrand said they received the final report from the town's River Study Committee in November outlining the options about what to do with the dam and "we were told (by DES) 13 minutes after we received it that we should get going."

"It didn't feel appropriate to me then, 13 weeks later it doesn't feel appropriate," Chartrand said and then told Clement, "Every time I say something, you take exception to it."

Quandt made a request to vote on his motion, but Clement told him to wait and then told Chartrand, "I don't take exception to what you say. You have an opinion and you have a right to state that opinion. But when you make a statement that we're being rushed to judgment by DES, I have to argue with you."

"We've gone through a 13-year process ... that is a statement of fact," Clement added.

After the meeting, Clement repeated that there had been "no rush to judgment."

Clement said last week he was disappointed and "embarrassed" by the board's lack of leadership on the dam issue.

Griset filed the citizens petition, which calls for $1.7 million to remove the dam and to retrofit dam intake valves that are now used for water for the Exeter Mills if needed.

Clement and Ferraro voted to remove the dam, but Chartrand, Quandt and Gilman voted against it.

People who support removing the dam, and the final committee report, said that not only will removal of the dam restore the river to its natural state, it will dramatically reduce flooding in the downtown and improve water quality.

Stabilizing the dam in place is estimated by the committee study to cost $1.16 million, but it would not improve water quality.

Modifying the dam through the use of a flashboard system would cost $2.4 million, and address flooding concerns, but not water quality issues.

Steve Doyon, administrator for the Dam Safety Inspection Bureau, said Monday DES asked for the formal letter from the town to see how they intended to proceed after the elections in March.

"We're looking at the letter saying either they're going to remove the dam and this is how we're going to proceed or we're going to keep the dam," Doyon said.

He said the state doesn't expect to receive the letter until after the March elections, but wants to hear a formal plan from the town about their plans for Great Dam.

"Back in 2000 we issued the most recent LOD (letter of deficiency) indicating certain shortcomings, but we deferred action until the town had time to explore the dam removal option," Doyon said.

He acknowledged that "things have gone slowly," but said these kind of discussions take time and the town has done a good job of paying more attention to the dam during heavier rain events in the interim.

Never miss a story

Choose the plan that's right for you.
Digital access or digital and print delivery.

Advertise

Original content available for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons license, except where noted.
seacoastonline.com ~ 111 New Hampshire Ave., Portsmouth, NH 03801 ~ Privacy Policy ~ Terms Of Service